Since you support granting the state the power to forcibly deport people who disgree with you on questions of foreign policy, I don’t think much of your defense of “rights” and “free speech”.
Although you may try to portray it as such, your White Nationalism does not strike me as a particularly libertarian philosophy.
I am not a Libertarian. I’m more paleoconservative, as I have stated. WN is not a Libertarian philosophy, and never claimed to be. I don’t extend freedom of speech to apply to people who manipulate the government into supporting a foreign nation over their own.
Sorry, your whole story had nothing to do with a will. The guy did not write up a will.
The point is that homosexuals should not have to resort to odd means by which to approximate the legal condition of marriage. Homosexuals can fulfill all the relevant obligations and exchanges of married couples: it makes no sense to deny them access to the legal arrangement.
That’s fine. And to the extent that they are all participants in a common movement or organization my same points would apply to them. I hope you do not intend to parry any and all questions about yourself and your movement by pointing to leftists and saying they do it too.
Strange that you should ask. If you would pay attention to the news these days you would observe that support for Israel is strongest on the right wing of the political spectrum; it is weakest on the left. I’m not sure what your point is here, in any event.
Again, parrying by pointing to the left – see above. FTR, I am not a leftist, and I do agree that something of a double standard exists. In the case at hand it is not as glaring, as it is not completely clear (AFAIK) that the crime was perpetuated for racial reasons. In any event, I don’t think this is at all relevant to the specific questions that I asked.
OK, but let’s be clear about it – the title of this thread would seem to suggest otherwise. I rather suspect that many people are interested in your opinions only to the extent that they purport to be those of the WN movement. To the extent that they represent those of one anonymous woman in Canada they are of far less significance.
And you’ve not addressed the first half of the question.
That’s all great. But I am not debating the positions of other people. My questions here were specifically addressed to you with regards to your positions and the legitimacy of your arguments here, in light of the positions of others in your movement.
OK, can you tell me how this would achieve your purported goals of preserving white culture? This (I am treating the US and Canada the same here) would remain a country with a large minority population. How do you escape their influence?
Please be more specific. Would your deportation order specify all Jews? How would you sort out the “supporters” from the non-supporters? Would you seize all their assets?
What about people of Irish descent who attempt to shape foreign policy with regards to Ireland? Dual loyalists? And what do you think of the German-American Bund, which worked mightily to influence the US in favor of Germany in the 30’s and early 40’s. Should all these dual-loyalists have been shipped over to Germany?
But you’ve not explained what that has to do with White culture. Unless you can somehow show that gays are a result of some non-White influence, I don’t see the connection.
Sorry, I’m not one of the big gay rights people here – my issue here is not your opposition to gay rights per se but the tie-in to the WN movement and what this tells us about the underlying motivations of this movement. Maybe one of the Gay Rights people will take you up.
Buckner wrote:
That’s for certain. In fact, the more I learn, the more I find it to be at least harmonious with National Socialism. It appears to advocate a sort of Fabianist state control.
Sionnach doesn’t seem to like the supremacist label even though it is almost impossible to read most of their posts without seeing phrases that clearly evoke a superiority. I am a White. You are a Negro. I am a straight. You are a queer. And so on.
Sionnach wrote:
Merciful heavens. The kindest thing anyone said there was that homosexuality is a genetic defect. I won’t make the fallacy (not to mention the moral sin) of judging you by their words, but I see no dissent whatsoever with respect to, yet again, another claim of superiority. My brain is normal. Yours is defective.
Perhaps “supremacy” does not mean what you think it means.
At any rate, I now have a new question. You mention Christianity as one of the unifying points of western culture. Do the White Nationalists understand that Jesus was a Jew? Or do they maintain that He and His disciples were all Caucasian, and that the New Testament is a Jewish fabrication?
First, do you have any kind of a citation on the story? I’d like to know what it is you’re talking about.
Second, what what is the evidence that the victims were targeted because they were white? It’s quite clear that James Byrd was singled out and killed because he was a black man (“negro” is quite archaic, you know) and the killers hated black people. Where is the evidence that these five white people of whom you speak were singled out because they were white and the killers hated white people? I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but if you’re going to show something was a “hate crime,” that’s what you’ve got to show.
OK, then. However, that sort of makes all the complaints we’ve been hearing the last few days from the White Nationalists about “censorship” ring a little hollow.
What is so odd about a will? Get a will and live with your partner.
Read the FAQ. That’s the common movement. Besides the FAQ, all movements have different factions and individuals with different degrees of intensity. The media tries to pigeonhole us into some kind of perfectly homogenous movement that wants to beat up any dissenters. That’s hogwash.
By “right-wing”, I suppose you mean neoconservatives. Those creatures are merely Zionists with a Republican mask. Supporting a foreign nation over your own has nothing to do with conservatism. Quite the opposite. I post on a couple right-wing forums that despise Israel as much as Stormfront. No decent right-winger would support handing over taxpayer money to foreigners.
It’s very clear that whites are targetted by these negro criminals. During the crimes, one of the negroes even asked the white women questions like “Do you like black men?” “Have you ever been with a black man?” I would like an answer by some of these leftists. Why is it a bigger tragedy when one negro is killed by a white man than when five whites are sexually assaulted and executed by negro brothers?
FYI, the moderator changed the title of the thread.
I am the only one who is not banned at the moment. It’s the moderators on this board who banned the rest. If you have a problem that I am a lone woman having a discussion and not representing the entire spectrum of views, take issue with the moderators who banned the rest, not me.
It’s a possibility that a few Jews who gave up all tribal loyalty and assimilated could stay. I would not seize all their assets. They could take a certain amount to Israel 
There is no current problem with Irish and German groups. I don’t know how I would go back in time to ship the Bund of the 30’s and 40’s to Germany. I’m a WN, not a time traveler LoL.
Why would a movement that doesn’t respect the actions of “minority groups” who lobby for fictitious “rights” respect a movement based on a sexual deviation who follows the exact same pattern?
Once more, with feeling: Cite, please?
Homosexuality is a sexual deviation. Men and women have a biological instinct to mate for the purpose of having offspring. That biological instinct in homosexuals has been distorted. We don’t know yet why, but it’s definatly a deviation like a number of other fetishes. I expect soon for some “Animal Lovers” to demand equal rights and recognition for “inter-species love.”
There are different opinions on the subject of religion, but no one can deny that Christianity has been a major influence and entrenched tradition in the West.
As for the “Christianity is Jewish” arguement, Christianity is very different than Judaism. Jews reject Christ and think he’s boiling in hell in a pot of excrement.
If white brothers did this to five negros, the outrage would never end.
I’m sorry if you don’t know the difference between free and open debate and organized treason. The Zionist lobbies don’t care about any country but Israel, nor do they care about open debate. They’ve stifled the discussion so much that it’s basically career suicide to not support Israel. Anyone who claims that it’s “anti-semitic” to say that the we should support our own country’s interest over Israel’s interest should pack up for Tel Aviv. B’nai Brith can take a hike.
It seems to me that if Zionists control the majority of anything, that represents a weakness on the part of non-Zionists. Meaning, of course, that any claims of non-Zionist superiority are highly suspect. Maybe Zionists control these things, if, indeed, they do, because they have the capacity to do so, and the so-called “White Nationalists” don’t.
Which means the entire movement smacks of nothing more than sour grapes. If you can’t outcompete them, resort to force and violence. Because, you know, that’s way more enlightened.
Sionnach wrote:
Do you honestly believe that every Jew has stolen something from you? I’m assuming here that you would not seize assets that do not belong to you.
If so, how is it that you ask that everyone here consider you on your own merits, irrespective of the views or activities of other White Nationalists, while you are unwilling to afford to millions of people the exact same courtesy?
Also, do you include converted white Jews in your, whatever it is — seperatism, supremacy, obsession… you tell me? That is, is it the Jewish religion that offends you or descendents of the Israelites?
So is a heterosexual foot fetish. So is an obsessive attraction to fat people of the opposite sex. In fact, so is celibacy.
But deviation from a norm does not imply any defect. Otherwise, you yourself suffer from all sorts of defects unless you are the perfectly average person.
I read the FAQ. But I don’t think you can declare that to be the common movement, if a substantial percentage of the members are not of that persuasion. In particular, many of the moderators of the SF MB appear to be far more extreme than the FAQ – as I understand it, these are appointed by Don Black himself.
I don’t know that the media is trying to pigeonhole you, or even cares that much about you at all. The perception I get from the media is that there are all sorts of vicious hate-filled bigots out there. This is easily verified by a visit to the SF website. What one also sees on such visits is that there are people who purport to be less vicious and less hate-filled, but who nonetheless regard the vicious hate-filled ones as fine people and fellow kampfers. Which is a bit suspicious, so I ask about it. No answer.
When I say “right-wing” I mean what is commonly referred to as right-wing. I am not creating my own definitions here, as you appear to be doing. It might be a good idea to use commonly used terminology, so as to be less confusing. (Your last sentence here is circular – of the “no true Scotsman” variety).
I have no problem with the moderators, or even with you. I have a problem to the extent that you purport to defend WN while defending a watered down version. To the extent that you are clear that you are not defending WN, I don’t have much of a problem with regards to this. Other than the guilt by association matter, which you’ve persistently declined to address.
If you could humor me a bit here, what percentage of Jews do you envision staying, based on your criteria and your view of the Jewish population today?
You are too kind.
You’ve not answered my other question – perhaps you’ve overlooked it. I shall repost: can you tell me how this would achieve your purported goals of preserving white culture? This (I am treating the US and Canada the same here) would remain a country with a large minority population. How do you escape their influence?
I am pretty sure Irish groups in the US are a significant factor with regards to US policy towards the IRA.
Harharhar. Now that is funny. Or jewspeak sarcasm. Either way, you are evading the question. Which is, whether you consider that to have been an example of dual-loyalty, and do you feel that they should have been shipped back to Germany.
Because your ostensible reason for not respecting actions of “minority groups” has nothing to do with their manner of lobbying – supposedly it’s all about preserving the White heritage and culture which are under attack. You appear to be stretching here.
Actually, S-man, Jews don’t much of anything about Christ - he’s part of your religion, not ours; besides, Judaism doesn’t have a hell.
As for the rest of your… opinions, well, one reason that American Jews support my country is that the U.S. has people like you in it. After all, you might some day be in charge, and then where will they go? Think of Zionism as an investment for an uncertan future. Just don’t claim that it’s somehow “causing” the hatred of Jews - a certain kind of people was hating us back when they were still painting their faces with woad and greasing their hair with bear fat.
Your cite offers not even one tiny shred of evidence that the Carr brothers hated white people and targeted their victims because they were white. All it does is offer speculation that, Hey, they were black guys and they killed white folks, isn’t that a hate crime? It even concedes that one of the Carrs had a white girlfriend, which is pretty well inconsistent with hatred of white people.
Try again.
Whether or not it was legally a “hate crime,” the victims are just as dead.
Yes, and your cat’s breath smells like cat food. Try to stay on point.
—What is so odd about a will? Get a will and live with your partner.—
First of all, I don’t have to: I can legally marry my partner.
But second of all, if gay people have to do it through wills (and there are many reaosns that they can’t do the sorts of things via a will that they can do via marriage: because they don’t convey the same legal rights), then why don’t straight people. Your response suggests a double standard.
To clarify minty’s point with regards to this: what you are saying is that whether something is a hate crime is insignificant. What we are discussing is whether there is a “double standard” at play in not making as big a deal about this crime as about the Byrd death. And to the extent that this difference is merely a product of the fact that one was not a hate crime, there is no evidence of a double standard. You may disagree with the idea of making a big deal over hate crimes, but the reality is that this is done, and the difference in coverage was the result of this reality. Not the result of the difference in the race of the perpetrators and victims.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – The Constitution of the United States of America.
Nothing in there about these provisions not applying to “Zionists” or “Negroes”. In fact, a bit further on we come to:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Why is supporting a particular foreign policy stance “treason” and outside the bounds of free and open debate, but seeking to undermine the fundamental constitutional principles of this country is just peachy?